Hello all. Mark here.

John already wrote a wonderful BMT for this film but I had to contribute as well.

I am a huge fan the Die Hard series. The first four all had their own flavor and style and I loved every second of them. However, this fifth film is incredibly painful, boring and totally unnecessary. Instead of dog piling on top of all the negative reviews I am going to share a message chain that my friends and I came up with in order to provide ideas for the inevitable sequel. We want the series to become relevant again and these ideas could give the producers, writers and Willis a creative boost. Enjoy!

Mark: Die Hard 5 was absolutely soul crushing. Here are my suggestions for the inevitable Die Hard 6.
1. Do a shot for shot remake of the original with Vince Vaughn…..
2. Call it Live Free of Die Hardigan. Cast a cardigan wearing Tom Hardy as the revengeful and ultra stylish brother of prior bad guy Timothy Olyphant.
3. Pretend Looper is Die Hard 6.
4. Go the Leprechaun/Jason route and send Willis to Space. Call it Die Hard: Armageddon with a Vengeance.
5. Make Mary Elizabeth Winstead the main character and include every cast member from Scott Pilgrim and the Fast & Furious series. Call it Die Hard: Sorry for the last one

DJ: Part six should be called a Die Hard: Six Pack and have evil personal trainers steal all the money from Little Debbie to make people thinner

Mark: Die Hard: With a Snack Cake!

Nippy: Or just call it Die Hard: Termination…. and have Allan Rickman play a cyborg version of himself… borrowing many visuals and dialog from the Terminator series

Don: Oh, these are good! Someone should take the movie The Fifth Element and dub it, making it into another Die Hard installment. It has all the makings of a Die Hard movie: the heavy amounts of action; forever being out-gunned and out-numbered; and Willis as the reluctant hero that saves the day. Maybe CGI Hans Gruber’s clone (Alan Rickman) to fight alongside Zorg (Gary Oldman)?

Mark: Whoa. That sounds wonderful. We could do that with a lot of the Willis films. Die Hard 12: Monkeys. Die Hard 16: Blocks

Nippy: Die Hard Sixth Sense

Don: Die Hard: Die Moonrise Kingdom Hard.…..wait…Moonrise Kingdom: The Last Die Hard Boy Scout

Nippy: They could also kill to birds with one stone, die hard 6, roger rabbit 2… Just saying

Don: BTW, they are starting production on Die Hard 7, entitiled “Die Hardest.” Considering there has been a movie with him saving each of his family members (his wife, twice) maybe in this one he saves…the nanny?http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2884178/

Mark: I think Willis should go back in time to prevent Die Hard 5. Or, His character from Moonrise Kingdom is a beaten down McClane (big reveal!) who has lost his kids via Hans Gruber’s other brother and he has to begrudgingly battle the euro villains again.

Don: You mean he reluctantly goes back in time?

Mark: Or, with the downward trajectory of the series they should just re-release Cop Out and call it Die Hard 6. Saves money. Annoys Kevin Smith.

Chris: Die Hard 12: We Can’t Believe We Made it Either

Mark: Die Hard 13: Listen folks, you keep watching this stuff so we are going to keep making them. Heck, we sent Bruce to space last year and he battled a Rickman clone on Mars. The movie made $200 million, Willis was only on set for three days and Rickman was pissed at the tight green suit he was stuck in.

Chris: Die Hard 14: Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel

Mark: John McClane in barrel chasing Michael Shannon in a barrel down Niagara Falls. Boom!

Niall: Die Hard: When John met Holly with Joseph Gordon levitt

Mark: Whoa! That opens up the whole prequel world. Police Academy starring John McClane….and Bobcat Goldthwait and that dude who makes all the noises. Check out this meme I found for the new Die Hard too!

People love Melissa McCarthy. Her groundbreaking work in Bridesmaids made her a bona fide box office star and was a revelation for several reasons. It gave us a larger than life woman who was in charge of her surroundings, embraced her sexuality and loved puppies. She laid the groundwork for Rebel Wilson’s Fat Amy in the sleeper hit Pitch Perfect and she is the only reason Identity Thief made money.

Identity Thief is bad. The critics didn’t like it (20% Rt) and audiences thought it was rotten (58%). However, it collected $135 million at the box office. Nobody seemed to like it yet it swindled the audiences cash over a period of several weeks. Here is how it fared from February 8th-March 10th (35, 27, 14, 10, 6 million). The first week drop off was unprecedented.  I recently wrote a piece about correctly predicting word of mouth hits. Identity Thief does not fall into the criteria of any of the films I mentioned. It is mean, scattershot and features Jason Bateman unnecessarily hitting Melissa McCarthy in the face with a guitar. Instead of being nice the characters are archetypes ranging from emasculated, insane, brutish and depressingly sad.

McCarthy works her butt off in the film. She falls, dives, swears, throat punches, runs slowly, cries, has an amazing perm and ends up redeeming herself. However, she is one of the most depressing film characters in recent memory. She is cartoonish to the point where her bones must be filled titanium yet has a fragile psyche due to some childhood trauma and abandonment. She wrecks lives, is desperate for attention and is ultimately redeemed in a cringe worthy manner.

To top off the cartoony realism the plot is absolutely incoherent. You will say What? Huh? When? Who? What? Really? No? Yuck. I will let Roger Ebert explain it.

Thanks to an idiotic premise involving Jon Favreau as the world’s worst boss, Morris Chestnut as Denver’s dumbest cop and John Cho as the world’s worst friend, it’s up to Sandy to make his way to Florida, capture Diana and bring her to Colorado. Then it’s up to the screenwriter to find ways to keep Sandy and Diana on the road together for a series of wacky escapades, when all Sandy has to do is pick up a phone, dial the authorities and say, “Hey, you know that woman who stole my identity and has committed hundreds of felonies? Got her!”

Ebert normally gave movies the benefit of the doubt. In my sleeper hit post Ebert gave Paul Blart: Mall Cop a positive review because he liked the nice characters. Ebert wasn’t an angry reviewer yet he saw through the zaniness of Identity Thief. Intelligence and practicality are sacrificed for throat punches, car chases and “Sandy” jokes.

Why did audiences flock to this film? Why did it hold up so well the second weekend? Box Office mojo explained it’s success like this:

From its clearly articulated, relatable premise to its broadly-appealing leads, the movie feels like it came off some kind of “comedy hit” assembly line, and Universal is reaping major rewards so far.

Essentially, the movie boiled down to people thinking it would be fun. On paper the teaming of Bateman and McCarthy is inspired and worthy of further exploration. Thief reminded me of the soul crushing Due Date. The film had a hot cast (Downey Jr. Galifianakis), was bashed by critics (39%) yet still cleared the 100 million dollar mark. Both of these films instilled faith in the cinema going public that they couldn’t be all that bad.

Alonso Duralde of The Wrap agreed by saying:

“Identity Thief the kind of cast that makes audiences ask, “How bad could it be?” before proceeding to answer that very question.”

Thief’s director Seth Gordon (who best film is still King of Kong) had a similar critically and audience reviled hit with Four Christmases in 2008. The cast was hot at the time (Vince Vaughn, Reese Witherspoon) and those famous people carried the film to $120 million. Four was absolutely soul crushing yet had such an amazing cast people went to watch it. A year later Couples’s Retreat with Bateman, Favreau and Vaughn went on to make $109 million with a abysmal 11% RT score. These movies made money because of the great casts but imagine how much money they would have made if they were good. Also, they hurt the long term marketability of the stars. Nowadays, Vaughn’s comedies are not doing so well with Dilemma, The Watch and The Internship all under performing.

People went to watch Melissa McCarthy do her thing in Identity Thief and instead had their time and money stolen. McCarthy’s latest film The Heat is doing well so all is forgiven. However, in order for McCarthy to retain her box office clout she needs to pay close attention to what made her famous in the first place. Bridesmaids will not be duplicated anytime soon but it did lay out a nice blueprint for success. It put characters first and built the gags from there. A silly character is not funny because they are silly. Characters are funny because you like them.

Don’t watch Identity Thief. Search out The King of Kong: Fistful of Quarters. Cherish Bridesmaids.

SPOILER ALERT!!! READ NO FURTHER IF YOU WANT THE PLOT OF MAMA REVEALED. Read John’s non-spoiler wonderful review of Mama here.

Throughout the course of my cinema watching career there have been certain moments, villains and spin kicks that are so bad they’ve become intriguing. They’ve left me thinking about the movie long after it has finished. This particular post will be about the ending of the film Mama. Mama is not a bad film. It is confidently made, well acted and original. There are several fantastic shots and it seems well thought out. I say “it seems” because the ending leaves the heroes in a terrible spot that will likely result in a long court battle and years of jail time. It is the ghost equivalent of “a dingo ate my baby!” The people are innocent but it will be hard to explain to the courts.

The ending of Mama goes like this. Mama gets jealous and kidnaps the kids. So, yada yada yada Mama takes one kid and leaves the other. Mama and the child fall off a cliff where they turn into leaves and blend back in with nature. This is where the real problem starts.

Have you ever wondered how the people involved in horror films are able to explain all the death and destruction once the bad demon has been destroyed? I pondered this conundrum when Mama ended. How will they explain a missing child, mummified aunt and crunched psychiatrist? All the evidence has disappeared and the evil demon has become one with nature again.  I do not envy their predicament.

This post destruction phase could make for ripe narrative territory. They have to explain a missing child who was with them the entire time. I don’t think Matthew McConaughey’s Lincoln Lawyer could prove “innocence via angry ghost.” The jury could not literally handle the truth of the situation. There are no dead zombies, rednecks or masked maniacs lying around so there is no one to put the blame on. Also, the surviving man’s twin brother became murderous and that is why the kids ended up in the care of an angry ghost mama. So, no alibi, unbelievable excuse and history of mental illness in the family will spell doom for the survivors. Will Jessica Chastain ever play in her band again? Will Nikolaj Coster-Waldau hear that he looks like Jaime Lannister in prison?

These are not the thoughts one should be having after watching a film. I should have been basking in the wonder of all things Mama but instead was scratching my head at the vague ending. I’d compare this to running a disciplined marathon and running off course ten feet before the finish line.

What do you think will happen?

The new Evil Dead is a nasty little thing with none of the charm that made Evil Dead 1 & 2 and Army of Darkness cult classics (Horror Czar John loved it though. review). The movie introduces us to stock characters who will eventually die in incredibly bloody ways. Limbs will be lost, tongues will be cut in half, nail guns will be used, machetes swung, pliers plunged, crow bars bludgeoned and power knives used. It guides us through increasingly violent set pieces until an ending that literally rains blood.

While watching the Dead remake it got me thinking about They Live. John Carpenter made a trio of classics with Kurt Russel (The Thing, Escape from New York, Big Trouble Little China) in the 80s and looked to continue the epic run. However, Kurt wasn’t available for They Live so Carpenter cast professional wrestler Rowdy Roddy Piper to play the lead. Between the one-liners, relevant themes and bad acting the film has become a cult classic treasured by horror buffs and pop culture. The reason this film is still popular is because it has bumps and bruises (watch the fight below) that make it endearing.

Greatest fight ever!

The same thing goes for the original Evil Dead. The low budget, bad acting and creativity made it a classic. The movie exuded glee and showcased the skills of Sam Raimi. Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness are completely unique. They are equal parts bonkers, insane and wonderful. They shouldn’t exist on this planet because they are live action looney tunes of beautiful gore and pompous behavior.

Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell executive produced the 2013 remake and director Fede Alvarez wisely chose to make some changes. He cast the lovely Jane Levy as the lead and took out the zany humor and dancing skeletons. Alvarez makes thing bleed extraordinarily well and stays true to the original without stealing it’s style. However, in the process he has made a homogenized horror film that features familiar beats and bloody excess. I began to worry as Alvarez put more emphasis on the practical effects (lots of blood, makeup)  than story. Whenever I hear how practical everything is I get worried because some movies care more about the look than the characters. So, you are stuck with great looking homicide and little reason to care.

The remake is too clean. Sure, it is dirty, violent and bloody. However, it is manicured violence much like many of it’s remake cousins. The acting isn’t bad, the characters are decent and the plot is nicely layered. This film lovingly steals from the predecessor and finds new ways to get to the same moments. The movie is done so well it left zero room for personality. The technical superiority made it a sleek pilot-less drone of bloody carnage.

Horror fans don’t ask for high art. They just ask to be entertained. Maybe that is why I love films like Devil, Insidious, Conjuring and Session 9. I got caught up in their stories and genuinely liked some the characters which allowed me to forgive the familiar tropes.

The technical superiority of the remade Evil Dead and adherence to the original series has created a film with little character. I hope in the future horror films allow themselves to have a little bit of fun.

The Wolverine is not a bad movie. It tries really hard to be likable but loses it’s way when it indulges in bloodless CGI battles, wonky villains and too much drama.  It tells an insular story that never finds a rhythm but is light years ahead of X-Men The Last Stand and Origins.  You can tell Hugh Jackman is passionate about the role because of all the chicken breasts he’s had to eat over the years. He cares for the character and wants to give The Wolverine purists something to love.  It is never in doubt that his bearded immortal has seen too much, lost everyone and enjoys bottles labeled “straight whiskey.”

The biggest problem with the film is the reliance on CGI and underwritten villains/characters. Why establish characters then lose them in quickly edited battle or dream sequences. The human moments are what make The Wolverine better than Origins and Last Stand. Those films betrayed character and lost everything that made them likable (shut Deadpool’s mouth, made Mystique human). Remember when Jean Grey died in X2? The scene was amazing because you felt  loss and urgency in one deadly moment. It went beyond a comic book film and became cinema. You cared for the characters and it wasn’t an empty shell of self-importance and kiddie pool deep themes (Man of Steel). The same character building tactics were used in successful films like Spider Man 2, The Dark Knight, Chronicle and Iron Man. 

Wolverine works best when humans are fighting. There are two moments  that I wanted to highlight.  One scene involves two tough Yakuza thugs, a speeding train and an ailing wolverine. They jump, stab and claw their way to the best moment of the film. There is something at stake and it is a battle of wits, knives and sideburns. You admire the doomed Yakuza and you love how Wolverine dispatches them.

Another cool scene involves Wolverine’s impromptu bodyguard (Rila Fukushima) protecting him while he is vulnerable. The scene works because the immortal/indestructible mutant can’t move and needs to be protected. She battles a much stronger man in a barrage of flips, dodges, ducks, dips, dives and dodges. The scene has a human element  that has made Batman and Iron Man so popular. You care if she gets stabbed because she can’t heal. Her opponent is bigger, stronger and more experience yet she fights desperately to give Logan the time he needs to heal himself. The fight is frantic, fun and well choreographed.

The quiet moments and character building are all lost in arrow fights, massive robots and the worst character in X-Men history. The Viper played by Svetlana Khodchenkova is reminiscent of Uma Thurman’s Poison Ivy. However, Svetlana is no Uma and her character comes across as smug and totally unnecessary. Also, you get a subplot about a jealous son and large metal robot. They are so underwritten it makes all their scenes useless. Sure, things are going boom and dudes are getting slashed but it feels like an excuse for a shirtless Jackman to wreck some fools. Popular superhero films (Dark Knight, Spider Man 2, X2) all had menacing bad guys who you liked and feared (Joker, Loki, Doc. Ock, Stryker, Magneto). Their actions carried believable malice that kept you on the edge of your seat. Within The Wolverine world you don’t care because you know the bad guys are just claw fodder for the side burned angry fella. I’m pretty sure that bottle of straight whiskey gave Logan a bigger headache than the legions of ninjas.

The Wolverine is not a bad film. It attempted to tell a classic story but forgot about making interesting bad guys. The same thing happened to Pacific Rim. In all the hoopla of telling an action packed story they forgot to create three-dimensional characters. What followed were underwhelming box office and no hard feelings. Critics and audiences like the two films but they didn’t love them. Thus, they will be great on TNT/FX  but forgotten in the canon of Superhero lore.

Watch the Wolverine. Appreciate the train fight. Root for Rila. Watch X2.

Hello all. Mark here.

Oblivion Spoiler Alert!

The point of this post is to analyze why critics chose to dog pile on Oblivion and point out how unoriginal this original story was.

Nicolas Cage recently sat down with Empire magazine to record a podcast. In that podcast the great Roger Ebert came up in the discussion. Cage stated that he was one of the few critics who judged a film on it’s own merits and didn’t include pop culture references in regards to the film. He let it stand on it’s own and didn’t take actor’s personal lives into account when reviewing the film. The podcast got me thinking about the dogpile criticism heaped upon Oblivion. 

Oblivion is sitting at 56% on Rotten Tomatoes and that is understandable. It focuses more on style than substance.  My problem with the criticism is the lack of imagination and dog pile mentality put upon this film.  If you look back at the last five years every single science fiction film has the DNA of prior films. Even the best films Source Code,  Hanna, Attack the Block, Safety Not Guaranteed, Dredd, Chronicle, Sunshine, District 9, Jumper (yeah yeah I know), and my personal favorite Moon are familiar to a degree. I absolutely loved Source Code but it could be compared to Groundhog Day meets Twelve Monkeys. In a few short months Cruise will be back in the film Edge of Tomorrow (based on a 2009 Japanese novel) which is similar to Source Code and is about a solider who gets killed and resurrected everyday. Will critics compare it to Source Code not knowing it was written in 2009?

I read a lot of movie criticism. I appreciate the various viewpoints and occasional elegant prose used to review good, bad and classic cinema. While reading reviews for Oblivion I picked up on an alarming trend. The criticism ranged from lazy, mediocre to angry. Words like cover band, grab bag, derivative, cult religion, mishmash, clichés and to show they know big words GORMLESS. In the “gormless” review the critic gives away a massive plot point in the first paragraph in an attempt to be funny.

There are multiple religion slams and the reviewers simply seem annoyed by Cruise and the film. Rotten Tomatoes exclaims Cruise’s performance as solid while many other critics say he lacks chemistry with the actresses and he gives the film nothing.   Also, more often than not the reviewers had no clue Oblivion is based on a graphic novel written in 2005. The lack of research and easy criticism boggled my mind as movies that are not nearly as ambitious get a pass due to likable actors and familiarity.

For example, the Amazing Spider Man. Amazing was a reboot of a series that ended six years ago. Watching the film felt familiar yet it had an RT score of 73% and featured this critical summary “A well-chosen cast and sure-handed direction allow The Amazing Spider-Man to thrill, despite REVISITING MANY of the SAME plot points from 2002′s Spider-Man.” The movie featured montages straight out of Footloose, repeated the Uncle Ben death and copied a similar moment from Spider Man 2 (Crane operators help Spidey in Amazing and Subway patrons help Spidey in 2). The only reason it was made was so the rights didn’t revert back to Marvel. So, we get a prepackaged and familiar film that was celebrated while a new idea was called “unoriginal.”

Dog pile criticism is nothing new. When an auteur or actor (Tom Cruise) shows weakness the blades come out. For instance, I never thought I’d see the day where critics blast a Terrence Malick film. The enigma of a director rarely makes films yet they are always beautiful. However, To The Wonder is getting harped on by critics who started sharpening their axes on Tree of Life. Maybe I am weird but movies like  Oblivion and Tree of Life made perfect sense. I remember walking out of the theater and hearing people breaking down the cosmic world building of Tree of Life. They were looking into it too much because ToL is the simple story of a man pondering life, death and creation on the anniversary of his brother’s death. The dreamy camera movement signified memories brought up by the sad day. It is not confusing I just think people don’t want to think abstractly. Tree of Life cracked the door for criticism and To The Wonder burst it open.

When you watch a science fiction film you know what to expect. Spaceships, robots, drones, clones, lasers, plunging neck lines, cool outfits, aliens and much more. So, saying Oblivion resembles other films is too easy. Mass critical reception lacked imagination and was oddly angry at times. It reminded me of the critical coverage that doomed John Carter before it was released. Wesley Morris of Grantland explained it like this:

This is what John Carter could have been, and yet Oblivion could have been so much more. Kosinski doesn’t build a new world. He’s just reupholstered a bunch of old ones.

How is that any different from whats comes out now? I’m not saying it is right I just think the majority of cinema reupholsters old ideas and concepts. Here are the science fiction films from the last five years (Day breakers, Hot Tub Time Machine, G.I. Joe: Retaliation, Iron Man 2, Book of Eli, Iron Man 3, Star Trek into Darkness, The Crazies, Predators, Resident Evil: Afterlife, Skyline, Underworld 4, Tron 2, Hulk, Captain America, Thor,  The Adjustment Bureau, Cowboys & Aliens, The Darkest Hour, Battle: Los Angeles, I Am Number Four, In Time, Paul, Real Steel, The Thing, Prometheus, Battleship, Never Let Me Go, Resident Evil: Retribution, Men in Black 3, Total Recall, I am Legend, The Road,  AVPR, Superman Returns, Terminator Salvation, Gamer and  Doomsday). All of these films share reupholstered ideas so why was Oblivion singled out so badly?

Oblivion creates a startlingly real world courtesy of on location shooting in Iceland and Kosinski’s background as an architect. He builds beautiful vistas and knows how to make them shiny and awe inspiring.There are moments in this film that make your jaw drop and those moments totally justify the price of admission.

Many swipes have been taken at Cruise and Riseborough’s high tech base camp. However, did they not realize it was the home of two clones who have been programmed to live a simple life. The sleek edges and apple store vibe are appropriate given the circumstances. Cruise’s spaceship is also a practical tool with it’s 360 view swivel mounted guns. There is nothing wrong with the ship but it didn’t stop critics from saying it looked like “sperm.” As much as I love film criticism it boggles my mind how inconsistent it is.

Oblivion stands alongside Tron: Legacy, Life of Pi, Skyfall and Hugo as the five best looking films of the last five years. Kosinski may have trouble creating three dimensional characters but he is only two films into his directing tenure. The characters might be empty but his films are full of grand ambition and senses pleasing imagery.

We live in a dull movie landscape of remakes, prequels, reboots, sequels, adaptations and reimaginings. Why not appreciate something familiar yet beautiful?

Burt Wonderstone is an incredibly odd film. It features fantastic actors, painful editing and the idea that Steve Carrell in orange make-up is funny. The movie is so simplistic in its homogenized writing and disdain for blue-collar work that it stands alongside the weirdness of Tom Hank’s detached Larry Crowne. The problem is the actors (sans Carrey) embrace archetypes instead of following the Will Ferrell school of unwarranted confidence turned to 11. The rags to riches story of Ricky Bobby was a massive hit because it managed to be unpredictable (Mos Def cameo) hilarious (Shake & Bake) and romantic (Amy Adams as the love interest) while following a well-worn formula.

The nice man becoming a selfish man who becomes a better man has long been a staple of cinema. The riches/rags/riches trope is familiar but when done right can be a powerful cinematic tool. Watching characters drag themselves out of the hubris muck towards humanity is wonderful when you like or identify with the person.  You care as they alienate true friends, go broke, find a love interest, discover a mentor because they emerge as a delightful human being.

Wonderstone didn’t grow up as a poor black child in Mississippi. He grew up in the home of a single parent and had a supportive best friend (Steve Buscemi). He rose to magical heights and headlined the biggest club in Vegas for ten years. He becomes terrible to women (makes them sign wavers for sex acts) treat his friends miserably (Poor Steve Buscemi) and has zero patience for new tricks (Jim Carrey’s bonkers routine as the Brain Rapist). Unlike Bill Murray in Scrooged there is zero personality to Burt so the journey and self actualization don’t mean squat. At the end of Scrooged you cheer for Murray because he earned his retribution. At the end of Burt you are annoyed at how simply things ended.

There is zero at stake because it is 100% paint by numbers. In Kingpin a naive Woody Harrelson lost his bowling hand and fell into alcoholism after Bill Murray dupes him. His problems were real and dangerous so it makes his rise all the more important. You cheer for Woody Harrelson as he tries to get his life back. You feel nothing for Burt because he put himself in the situation and continues to treat everyone terribly.  

The problem with Burt Wonderstone is that he has zero reason to be so terrible and his rise seems unearned. Steve Martin made a Jerk incredibly likable as he went from rags to riches to rags.  Martin believed people were shooting at cans and you believed in his silliness. When Carrell says he never knew room service only goes to bedrooms you grimace. Burt Wonderstone asks you to believe that Olivia Wilde would stay blindly loyal and that a magician like Burt couldn’t figure out how to do a routine on his own. An illusionist with big hair is not funny on its own. The character is not helped by Carrell’s detached performance that feels more like sleepwalking than selling a role. Performers have been able to rise above weak scripts but Carrell never takes the leap like Harrelson in Kingpin or Ferrell in Blades of Glory.

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone will be a forgotten entry on all the actor’s resumes. It never tries hard enough to be good, bad or so bad it is good. The box office result will hopefully push it’s creators and actors to invest heavily in character and not consider big hair and cheeky routines funny. It was nice to see Jim Carrey back in manic comedian mode as he drills his head, crosses his eyes and injects the only life into an odd film.

Don’t watch Burt Wonderstone. Check out The Jerk, Kingpin, Scrooged or Talladega Nights.

SPOILER ALERT!!!! Read John’s review for a neat spoiler free journey into death via animal masked intruder.

Bilge Ebiri of Vulture wrote “every horror movie, on some fundamental level, traffic in bullsh**.” I agree because the horror genre is rife with too much explanation, too few solid characters and the need for an immersed viewing experience.  Every horror film is a step away from being crap and You’re Next tries to subvert that but instead creates a plot device for cracked skulls. You’re Next traffics in bullsh** but unwittingly creates a character who puts on boots and walks around the muck. Sharni Vinson carries the film on her petite shoulders as she navigates the hornet’s nest of white-collar violence.

You’re Next raises too many questions. For instance, why the animal masks? Can you only see straight ahead?  Why murder your family for inheritance?  Why write  ”You’re Next” on walls? How long does that take? What if a victim accidentally walks in on you writing this? How do you hire accomplices? Why leave your mom upstairs knowing the killer is upstairs? Why did the killers camp out in the house for two days? Why not lock the door? I understand that asking too many questions about the horror genre will make it implode onto itself but these questions kept popping up and made for a quizzical experience.

The overall positive consensus of You’re Next stems from the horror genres lack of quality. Aside from James Wan and  Ty West (Who cameos in the film) the horror genre has become a mixed bag of remakes (Evil Dead), prequels (Texas Chainsaw blah blah), sequels (Puppet Master) and found footage shlock (Chernobyll Diaries). Horror movies are either sleek drones of violence or expository machines that rid the world of mystery.   Thus, when a movie expresses a new idea or clear voice it is instantly praised. Audiences clamor for horror and will throw down their hard-earned cash to watch The Purge or Sinister. In the last five years I’ve enjoyed a hand full of horror films. The Conjuring, Insidious, Devil and Apollo 18 are enjoyable because they made me laugh, jump or appreciate Philly looking evil. I use the word “enjoyable” because the films weren’t masochistic gloss machines of death or excuses for a pretty lady to murder dumb killers.

You’re Next falls apart when it comes to explaining the villain’s motives. They are a bunch of rich punks who hire surfer/drug addicts to play killers. Their personalities don’t fit their actions and they come across as nothing more than bodies to put cool masks on. Thus, when they are dispatched there is no tension. The director Adam Wingard wanted to show off blood splatter and skull crushing and lost sight of what makes horror effective. I like the movies mentioned earlier because evil witches, red demons, moon rock spiders and the Devil are pure evil and want destruction on every level. There is no pettiness, selfishness or acting. They want to kill and their motives are understandable on the primal level. So, you worry for the heroes because they are in over their heads. Tension is built and not deflated due to escalating danger from evil spirits or spider rocks (FYI Apollo 18 is not a good film. It is bonkers and wonderfully bad).

However, the film eventually turns the tables and introduces us to a practical spitfire (Sharni Vinson, Bait 3D) who kicks ass and hits dudes many times in the head with meat tenderizers.  She doesn’t recover miraculously from injury, sets neat Home Alone type traps and is believably wiry. As the plot falls into bullsh** she rises above the story and helps us leave the theater happy. As she finishes up the movie by putting a blender on a person’s head and impaling a dude’s neck with a screwdriver you wish her the best. She is a plot device who ends up in a hornet’s nest of white-collar violence but that doesn’t stop you from hoping she recovers.

The reason this film is exists is to let blood, guts and sex flow freely. The animal masks were meant for marketing reasons and the characters are given traits and not personalities. I wish the director would have focused more on story and not the inevitable murder. I get that a bunch of killers being killed can be enjoyable but it feels like an excuse for blood. Many horror films have not needed to satiate the viewer’s lust for blood spillage. Some of the genre’s classics have built memorable tension by making us care for the characters and genuinely shocking us. You’re Next is told with a tongue-in-cheek vibe and thus is an exercise of indie macabre.

Watch You’re Next . Support the new horror creators. Don’t drink the kool-aid yet.

I’ve been hearing about a mythical film called The Norseman since I was a little kid. My dad would regale me with stories about a viking movie starring Lee Majors that for reasons unknown he was unable to finish. So, for years I’ve been searching for a copy of the elusive movie so my dad could finally figure out what happened to the intrepid vikings . The problem was that I couldn’t find the VHS/DVD/Blu-ray anywhere. I wondered if the movie was a myth perpetrated by IMDB and my Dad’s wonky memory. However, several weeks ago I was reading Ain’t it Cool’s weekly DVD updates and I saw a double pack of Barbarians (obviously starring the Barbarian Brothers) and The Norseman. I immediately purchased the DVD and we watched it together over the labor day weekend.

As movie starts we were greeted with a lusty hoard of blond giants (Sans Deacon Jones) with furry earmuffs rowing a ship shrouded by fog towards North America. As the men expertly move the streamlined ship a man takes off his helmet and reveals an immaculately trimmed mustache. Lee Major’s steps forward and we meet our mustachioed hero who will rescue his father, woo a Princess, do like 17 flying high kicks and pinpoint EXACTLY where his kin are being held hostage on a massive continental coast line.

Sidenote: Iroquois leagues weren’t formed for another four centuries.

I looked over at my dad who had the expression of “Hey, it was 33 years ago when I watched this. Seemed legit at the time. “ The Norseman is not epic but it is memorable. It is stuff of Mystery Science Theater’s dreams. I’d wager it took six days to film in the Florida swamps that stand in for Newfoundland. They probably got the Hillsborough River State Park location for cheap and quickly realized how hot, sweaty and remote it was. Major’s wanted to get down to Miami so it was filmed in six days as opposed to the budgeted 27. The script flew out of the window, beards thrown on everyone and history was dammed (The Guardian gave the film a D- history grade).

The Norseman is filled with exasperating moments of charming ineptitude. It has zero research, weird accents and Lee Major’s refusing to shave his mustache. I was astonished as Major’s walked around his ship flaunting his well manicured facial hair. His crew had the obligatory beards but Major’s shimmered with his outstanding stache. Who trimmed the thing? Were there mirrors? Had they invented scissors? Who dealt with the constant upkeep? My theory on the “stache” was that the studio could only make the film with Major’s and he refused to shave so they were stuck with an uncharacteristic viking who loved high kicks.

The Norseman centers around Lee Majors attempting to rescue his father from the jealous Iroquois nation. One of the Iroquois leaders was mad that a Viking was putting his lusty albeit respectful advances on a native so he and a gibberish spouting woman (Kathleen Freeman. You will recognize her) capture the Norsemen and blind them via hot pokers. So, Lee Major’s has to battle the native’s, rescue 20 blind people, spout monotone dialogue and pretend palmetto bushes existed in the north.

It has been a long journey to watch The Norseman. However, as Major’s  character Thorvald says ”It will be written that the name of Olaf shall live on in the land of the Norse,” I will rework the quote and say “It will be written that the name of The Norseman will live in the land of wonderful bad movies for eternity.”

Enjoy! Grow a mustache! High Kick some natives!

Robert DeNiro and John Travolta have starred in many fantastic films. The Killing Season is not one of them. Travolta channels Borat, DeNiro looks like he is sleeping and the facial hair is immaculate. The Killing Season fails because it lacks anything that would make it interesting (normal accents, grime, less monologues). When the similar film The Hunted  was released the producers/directors/actors talked about injuries, training and boot camps. The movie had an alive feel that was real, gritty and tough. The producers wanted something new and exciting and that is evident from this quote:

“Billy (William Friedkin) was adamant that we show a style of knife-fighting nobody had ever seen in a movie before,” recalls producer James Jacks. “At one point, when Tommy and Benicio were training, it went a little too much in the wrong direction and became like a Chuck Norris type of fight. But one of our experts was on hand to set us straight, explaining that if someone were to try a high kick [like those Norris does] his opponent would cut his Achilles tendon, and the fight would be over.”

Benicio Del Toro and Tommy Lee Jones trained for months and the realism showed up on screen. The Killing Season should have been a gritty, low budget actioneer starring two legends of cinema. However, it is too clean, too safe and odd accented.  DeNiro underplays while Travolta speaks like Boris and Natasha. The story takes place over several days yet the characters never grow beards. The clothes stay clean and Travolta’s skull cap stays perfect. The lack of realism and effort prevent this film from being anything other than a glossy film that involves zero punching of snakes.

Here is a brief synopsis. Travolta and DeNiro meet and talk. Travolta tortures DeNiro and they talk. DeNiro tortures Travolta and they talk. Travolta tortures DeNiro and they talk. DeNiro turns the tide and talks more. The movie ends.

The Killing Season is a training manual for what not to do when planning to kill a man who almost killed you in 1995. I sat in amazement as two skilled veterans monologue, put their foe in easily escapable situations and refrain from simply killing the dude when his back is turned. There are copious amounts of “Don’t: moments in the film. For example:

Don’t monologue when your victim is trapped under a wood pile.

Don’t walk around the person to look them in the eye because it will allow them time to pull shrapnel out of their leg to stab you with.

Don’t turn you back on your victim because they will untie themselves with the pin you put on their sweater

Don’t hit a table with an axe which cuts the rope that is tying your victim down.

Don’t flip over a man who is laying close to rocks because he will hit you in the face with one of the rocks.

Don’t say ”I want you live long, cause all the creatures come and nibble on your insides” because the guy will have more time to grab a knife and cut himself down.

It reminded me of Edgar Wright’s Don’t trailer

The movie could have been a gritty barn burner but instead took the easy road and paid for it (10% on RT). The word of mouth would have been incredible if it was good. The curiosity factor added with buzz could have created another career highlight. Instead,  the beards stay trimmed, the clothes stay clean and nobody seemed to care. This is a shame because the actors are capable of so much yet never attempted to make this something more.

The Killing Season is lazy cinema. Watch The Hunted instead. Remember that these guys starred in The Deer Hunter, Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas, Saturday Night Fever and Raging Bull. 

Hello all. Mark here.

Much ado has been made of the classic horror villains. They’ve become celebrated heroes of a violent genre. However, these baddies have become boring due to prequels, sequels, spin-offs, remakes and uninteresting back stories. I’ve decided to put together a list of my favorite horror villains who are wonderfully bad. Did they excel in bad movies? Did they make me laugh? Did their accents confound me? Did they eat an airplane?

Disclaimer: This list is not comprehensive and I haven’t broken the surface of the genre called horror. However, I love bad movies and I have an odd fascination with the strange creatures/people/air that inhabit subpar horror films. The following five are picks that I find humorous and incredible in odd ways.

1. The Shark who ate Sam Jackson in Deep Blue Sea (I’m guessing the sharks name is Steve)

Whoa!

Did you know that Sam Jackson was offered the LL Cool J role but his management thought it was a bad idea? It is a good thing Jackson took the role of Russel Franklin because his death instantly changed the film’s expectations. Anybody could die at any moment and that is why the film has such a massive fun factor. Also, the kill is so famous Entertainment Weekly gave it an A+ and praised it’s glory:

For its canny subversion of genre conventions, this shark shocker gets our vote for the best death scene in any Hollywood movie since, oh, Psycho.

It is rare that a movie about genetically engineered sharks gets brought up in the same sentence as Psycho. Here is how the kill came to fruition. In 1996 Deep Blue Sea director Renny Harlin worked with Jackson on The Long Kiss Good Night. In an early edit of the film Jackson’s character was killed off and the audience at the test screening  yelled “you can’t kill Sam Jackson.” Well, when Jackson took the DBS role Harlin came up with a brilliant idea. Here is what Jackson had to say about it:

I’m basically like Janet Leigh (Psycho) or Drew Barrymore (Scream). Director Renny Harlin came to me and said (Jackson doing his Harlin impression with a thick Finnish accent), “It’s going to be the most incredible death! It’s going to shock  everyone!” I said, “OK, Renny, I’m down with that.” I died a lot in movies in my early career and I’ve never been killed by any “thing” before.

Ebert also summed up Deep Blue Sea with this quote:

“There is a moment in this movie when something happens that is completely unexpected, and it’s over in a flash–a done deal–and the audience laughs in delight because it was so successfully surprised. In a genre where a lot of movies are retreads of the predictable, “Deep Blue Sea’‘ keeps you guessing.”

Sidenote: Jaws was 25 feet so the director made the Deep shark 26 feet.

2. Gerard Butler’s Hair in Dracula 2000

Before I discuss the hair I want you to watch Butler’s audition tape for Dracula 2000.

You have to admire it.

The mop on Butler’s head was an early prototype for what the hair would become.

the Critics ravaged Butler’s performance by using words like “preening, peevish, Bee Gee, worst ever.” However, Butler and his sultry performance wooed many women who carry the D2000 torch. This is evident from the Amazon reviews:

If you’re a Butlerian Crushgirl–by all means, rent or buy this. The moments with Mr. Butler are worth the price. When he sniffs Mary, it’s the kind of fully-dressed erotic moment that puts all the nude scenes in cinema to shame, and it proves that when you have people with intensity and charisma and screen “itness”, an expression, a breathy phrase, these are more sensual than a million displays of nakedness and groaning.

The only reason to watch this film is if you love Gerard Butler. I would have only rated it 2 stars for mediocre, but Gerard’s memorizing, seductive performance saves this film. For that reason alone, I have given it 5 stars.

The main thing I like about this movie is that is caters to FEMALES; yes, there is T&A for the guys, but the writers also realized their female audiece, which has *thankfully* begun to be a trend in the last decade or so. Even after all of the sexy vampire characters I have watched in movies, Gerard Butler is definately one of the SEXIEST, and most convincing!

Dracula 2000 has proven to be a critic proof cult classic. The fans have spoken! They gotta have more Gerard Butler and his gravity defying hair!

3. Parker Posey/Blade: Trinity

Parker Posey is transcendent (hair included) in Blade Trinity. She owns the role of a yuppy vampire who awakens a male model Dracula to battle Blade. Roger Ebert summed up her performance perfectly.

“Parker Posey is an actress I have always had affection for, and now it is mixed with increased admiration, for the way she soldiers through an impossible role, sneering like the good sport she is.”

Lake trout loving Posey soldiers on through a soul crushing script and copious amounts of slow motion walking. Without her we never would have seen this kick (10 second mark) or heard the insult “c*ck juggling thunder c**t.” While watching I felt she was on another level of performance. She realized the production had it’s troubles (read this article) and she went full vamp. Her committed performance is one of the reasons Blade: Trinity has become a watchable bad movie staple that won our Best Worst Sequel Tournament.

4. The Mega Shark

Mega crocodiles, sharktopi, bear sloths and huge piranhas wouldn’t be around if it wasn’t for the Mega Shark. The poorly CGI’d creature ate planes, battled a large octopus and created a massive buzz within the blogosphere. The reason for the success? The film (loosely called) is a serious take on animal apocalypse that hadn’t jumped the shark yet. It also features this scene that inspired a wonderful infographic.

Math!

5. John Voight/Anaconda

Voight holds the distinction of having the oddest accent in screen history. Watch this clip.

oof.

Take a look at this face too!

yuck.

I’m not sure what Voight was aiming for when he invited the Ruski-Creole concoction. He is a murderous river vermin who memorably winks after being regurgitated by an Anaconda.  The acting choice could either be incredibly shrewd or pompous. Either way, the role is memorable because of the bonkers all in performance by a veteran actor hamming it up to full effect.  I love that the accent had zero research behind it and sounded like an odd mixture of Creole, Russian and South American. The podcast How Did This Get Made tried to analyze the character and I think they become more confused. Thus, Mr. Voight succeeded by being memorable.

Honorable Mentions: The moon rock spiders from Apollo 18. The air from The Happening. The guy who yells the equivalent of “aarggg oooofff Labamba in Ghost of Mars. The Swimfan in Swimfan. 

Hope you enjoyed the list! Let me know who is your favorite of the bad horror villains.

I love bad movies. They have personality, charm and wonderfully off kilter characters. They are the products of delusion, laziness, ego and earnestness. To be a memorable bad movie character you have to rise above or below the material. The memorable performances are rarely decent. Think Nic Cage in The Wicker Man or Chris Klein from Street Fighter. They either realized the movie was terrible and had some fun or committed too much and went full crazy.

Here is my list for favorite characters in bad action films.

1. Dolph Lundgren – Command Performance

Why is Dolph at the top of the list? Well, he directed and starred in this movie about a biker/drummer/badass who kills many men and woos a beautiful twenty year old. While other directors are busy looking for Oscars Dolph was only concerned with looking awesome and playing some music. He is like the Dalton (Roadhouse) of Nu-Metal because everybody wants a piece of him.

I love that Dolph posed for these pictures. Check out the hair, tats, gun, leather pants, explosions and drum sticks.

Command Performance is a wonderfully insane film in which Dolph kills many bad guys and is in a Nu-Metal band called Cheap Mother F***kers (CMF). I love the film because it is an excuse for Dolph to kick ass and kick ass he does.

2. Nicolas Cage - Next

Boredom acting at its best. Time travel, falling logs and a readily available Jessica Biel are not enough to lure Cage out of his boredom. Add Julianne Moore as an FBI(?) agent who wears a funny hat and you have the  two most quizzical A-list performances in years.  Take a look at the pics below and you will notice a Cage trend that has persisted through the years.

Wearing a sweet leather jacket – Bored

A tryst with Biel – Bored

Eye torture – Bored

Looking at sweet watch – Bored

Getting some cuddles – Bored

Driving in the rain – Bored

I love Nicolas Cage as an actor. He had turned in some wonderful performances and his top five films could compete against any other actor. Sadly, his Next performance won’t be on that list.

3. Nicolas Cage – The Wicker Man

The polar opposite of Next. The Wicker Man is the gold standard of “Cage freak out.” The Oscar winner went full tilt boogie in this adaptation and it has become a beloved oddity of awesomeness. I love how Cage runs around the island and has to deal with copious amounts of people who won’t give him  a straight answer.

As Cage becomes increasingly nutso he starts spouting lines like:

1. “I’m only interested in the law, sister. So if you wackos are murdering….”

2. “you have my permission to stay out the f&$^ing way.”

3. “I’m here bouncing around in circles and nobody is helping!”

4. “Take off your stupid mask!”

In the end, Nic Cage is burned alive and several women have raging headaches. The Wicker Man is about one man’s journey to wear a bear suit. Forget Gulliver and Odysseus Nic Cage’s trip is much more interesting.

Watch these clips. They are NSFW due to excessive swearing, yelling and sidekicks.

Fear the beat suit!

4. Stephen Baldwin – Shark’s in Venice

In the pic above he literally says “look at those thingies.”

Sharks in Venice might be my favorite bad movie. it is full of hilarious moments and jogging doubles. Stephen Baldwin phoned in his role of a teacher who makes his class read chapter four on repeat. Shark’s in Venice is brilliant because of the shoe horned sharks and the truly bonkers performance Baldwin turned in. For instance, when walking with his girlfriend he explains the scenery like this:

“look at these thingies”

“you like these thingies”

“Look at that thing”

Baldwin also unleashes the epic line “I can’t talk. I’m bleeding.” Watch this clip to watch Baldwin push things and use a jogging double. It is brilliant.

Jogging double!

5. Nash- Street Fighter: the Legend of Chun Li

Chris Klein went next level on bonkers on Street Fighter. His Nash character is a marvel of odd acting choices and intense dialogue delivery. I’ve never seen anything like it. I could watch this clip for days.

His tire inspection is very thorough

“This guy walks through the raindrops. You don’t want to take it to this dance detective.”

Poor Moon Bloodgood

Street Fighter is a terribly boring fight film that was illuminated by Klein’s performance. Was he in on the joke? Did you know that he improvised the “Nash out” line? IO9 answered the question if this movie was watchable:

“Should you go see Street Fighter: The Legend Of Chun-Li? Yes – but very, very, very drunk, and only for Klein, , people will be dressing up like Nash for Halloween. God help me, it was awful and I loved it. I loved it so much, I was clapping my hands and holding my sides whenever he appeared on screen. Chris Klein is this movie’s saving grace.”

You gotta see Nash in action!

Hope you enjoyed the list! Comment, Share, Tweet and Repost! Thanks!

Hello all. Mark here.

I love bad movies. I love bad movies featuring mutated creatures. I love lists. I like this Lion Bee

So, co-writer Lasavath and I have compiled a mutated/indignant creature name generator list. For Instance, Abraham Lincoln would be an “Irascible Wereturkey.” These terrifying creations will certainly unleash terror upon cities and undoubtedly be in the next crop of SyFy films.

Enjoy. Comment.  Let us know what cranky creature you are. Share. Thanks!

First Name                                                       Last Name

A- Irascible                                                        A- Komodo Kitten Dragon

B- Indginant                                                     B- Lemur Leviathan

C- Flummoxed                                                 C- Unreleased Kraken

D- Rumpled                                                      D- Radioactive Dung Beetle

E- Beefy                                                              E- Gorilla Pug

F- Befuddled                                                     F- Amphibious Panther Tuna

G- Torrid                                                             G- Chupacabra Chinchilla

H- Wayward                                                      H- Razor Toed Sloth

I- Petulant                                                          I-  Knife Billed Platypus

J- Addled                                                             J- Abino Land Lobster

K- Slimy                                                               K- Marmot Snapping Turtle

L- Complacent                                                  L-  Wereturkey

M- Capricious                                                    M- Acid spitting Flying Llama

N-Dynamite                                                       N- Mustachioed Hairless Yeti

O- Smug                                                              O- Loch Ness Sea Cucumber

P- Calamitous                                                    P- T-Rex With a Tiny Head and Comically Long Arms

Q- Jocular                                                            Q- Catapult Operating Porcupine Gang

R- Insidious                                                        R- Flying Dragon Squirell

S- Turgid                                                              S- Eight-Legged Ostriconda

T- Obtuse                                                            T-  Invisible Bigfoot

U- Cantankerous                                              U- Giant Sobbing Hyena

V- Mercurial                                                       V- four Legged ink Spitting Llamapus

W- Quixotic                                                        W- Spider Monkey Spiders

X- Tenacious                                                      X- Gorilla in Paranormal Mist

Y- Uber Massive                                               Y- Great White Baboon Lizards

Z- Self-Righteous                                              Z- Spotted Muskrat Demonfish

Now. imagine your creature. The Chive did a fantastic job with their animal hybrids. 

John, here!  This week I will be your Bad Movie Tuesday guest writer and together we will endure…

MY CALL:  Not sure how the teenage girl target audience felt about this.  But I’m a 32 year old certified bro and this bored me to tears.  But maybe if you grew up on Hannah Montana, this is for you.  IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH:  Ugh…other movies filled with puppies and sunshine made for teenage girls.

Okay, so I only watched this because I told MFF-founder Mark that I would NEVER watch Blue Crush 2. Days later I received it from Amazon and I was almost certain there was a shipping error until I saw the note that read “Surfs up! Aloha! From Mark.”  He secretly bought it for me from Amazon as a gag gift and now I feel obligated to watch and review it.  I mean, look, he even sprung the extra few bucks to get me the blu-ray.

See.  This was a legit gift!  I did not buy, rent or in any way desire to see this.

So Dana (Sasha Jackson; China Bigfoot: Legend of the Yeren), an 18 year old valley girl who desires adventure to her privileged upper class problemless life, sets off to visit South Africa and leaves the continent without telling her father.  Let’s just pause right here.  She just leaves!  She lives with her dad and uses his credit card yet feels no obligation to tell him that she’s going to AFRICA on his dime!  Africa isn’t so safe these days, by the way, especially not for a naïve blonde teenager who may have never left the country or understand different cultures.  Didn’t she see Blood Diamond or Safe House?  Things can get a little rough over there.  Let’s add that it’s not even clear if she’s in high school, college or what.  Is she failing classes due to all these absences?  Will this little irresponsible adventure cost her a chance at getting into a decent college?  And if she’s in college, EVEN WORSE!  This would be catastrophic to her transcripts.  Let’s face it, this girl is simply reckless.  So maybe we should sneer instead of patting her on the back for “being so brave” or “true to herself.” Kids need to learn consequences–meanwhile I wouldn’t trust this girl to parallel park next to my car.

She even looks clueless on the beach.

Right after arriving in South Africa, Dana clashes with a rude local on a bus who then follows her all the way to the beach just to steal her stuff out of spite.  Welcome to Africa, Dana!  Maybe drop the entitled attitude when you’re talking to strange men in Africa.  You’re daddy can’t clean up your mess with legal threats or the swipe of a credit card out here.  And this all happened because she didn’t want to sit next to him on the bus.  What a privileged little…aaargh! I won’t say it.  Whatever, she got what she deserved.  I think the writers wanted me to sympathize with her after being robbed.  But no, this bro says the chick had it coming!

Dana meets Pushy (Elizabeth Mathis; Tron: Legacy) and Tara (Sharni Vinson; You’re Next, Bait).  Dana and Pushy are instant besties but Tara is the standoffish tough girl on the beach.  She’s a pro and she doesn’t like anyone getting in her way, so she immediately clashes with Dana.  As a certified bro I find this so tired.  We all know they’re going to be friends in the end of the movie even if that wouldn’t happen in real life.  This lace and roses goodie movie crap doesn’t fly with me.

So, take a look, bros.  You can sorta’ just tell that this girl probably doesn’t like adding new girls to the group.

Dana seeks to find herself by surfing at all the beaches in some old photos her deceased mother had taken when she had surfed those beaches.  This is her way of connecting with her mother who she never really got to know.  This strikes me as a very sweet thing to do and could make for a cute movie for kids.  So why corrupt it by sneaking away from home and running up your dad’s credit card bill by purchasing a most likely outrageously priced same-day flight to Africa?  And hey, she left for Africa the very same day she decided to go.  So she clearly didn’t get a VISA!!!!!!  I realize this is probably just a minor writing flaw in the story.  But in real life she’d need to wait a week or two for this VISA.  So, in order to get to Africa, I’m going with “she’s now a criminal” because she must have snuck onto the plane somehow like a little blonde ninja.  Enjoy your jail time when you get home, Dana.  And say hi to Lindsay Lohan for me.  Maybe you can be cell mates.  Might we add that, forgiving a possible writing flaw, that the guy on the bus stole your bag that would have had your passport, VISA, credit cards and all forms of identification you may have.  So ummmm…have fun at the embassy trying to explain that!

So now after hearing all this, this bro is like “Come on, bro. You can’t be serious with this movie synopsis. It’s gotta’ be totes bogus.”  And then I’m all “Sorry, Bro. THAT–JUST–HAPPENED!!!!”

To add some sense of adventure, Dana and Pushy get mixed up with some ivory poacher–I wasn’t impressed and felt no sense of urgency.  But wait, the poacher is the same guy from the bus that stole her stuff at the beach.  And her love interest is mixed up with the poacher.  And she has some other love interest.  And they try to follow the poacher to get her stuff back.  Is this chick NUTS!?!?!?!  This story is not just running off the rails, but Dana is seriously insane!  Following a poacher in Africa?  This guy will cut off your blonde head and lose no sleep over it!  Haven’t you seen The Last King of Scotland or The Mummy Returns?  It’s all dictators, death squads and undead armies down there!  What’s the next vacation you have planned?  Sun-bathing and partying in Afghanistan?

Yeah.  Great idea.  Right up there with traveling to Africa alone and telling no one where you’re going with any greater specificity than “South Africa.”  Well that narrows it down!

Too create yet more “first world problems “conflict, Dana’s dad eventually tries to track her down in South Africa–I couldn’t have cared less, but I’m sure it would embarrass any teenager in front of her new cool  surfer friends.  But how on Earth did he find her?  She’s living in a lean-to shack on the beach with a bunch of surfing beach hippies with no responsibilities or electricity.  And get this–he’s not even mad.  He’s actually a really tame and understanding guy who’s just happy to see that his daughter is okay.  That in mind, I’ll bet she could have just “asked” him if she wanted to set up an African surfing adventure.  Maybe they could make a bonding experience out of it and avoid dangerous criminals while they’re at it.  This movie is cute and all, but I’d imagine she should face more in the way of consequences.  I’m a Jersey Italian and if I pulled this crap when I was a kid (or even today) I’d get smacked in the mouth every day for a decade.

This movie could have been made for no reasons other than filming girls in teeny bikinis to a fun summer surfin’ soundtrack.  The tensions never feel too tense, the stakes are never too high, the bikini bottoms always ride up too high, the waves are always bodacious and nothing ever feels too serious.  I wasn’t impressed by the surfing stunts either–but maybe that’s just because I’m no surfer and I have no idea what’s actually hard to do.  Or, it’s because I’m a bro, I don’t get this teenage girl stuff and I just don’t care.

By the way, at the end Dana turns down some sort of pro-tour surfing gig, which would have salvaged the bad grade situation she’d be suffering.  Now someone suggested to me that maybe Dana had just graduated from high school and this was her summer before college or after her freshman year.  Actually, not possible!  South Africa is only subtropical and, being in the Southern Hemisphere, has reversed seasons.  So if it was Dana’s summer, it would be too chilly to surf in South Africa.  June to August highs are in the low 60s to low 70s and these girls weren’t wearing wetsuits.  So, congrats, Dana!  You now have no future.  Enjoy working at Hollister for the foreseeable future.

And who offers her the pro gig?  Her arch nemesis.

Proooobably not in the 60s or low 70s that day.  Otherwise those girls would need a sandwich and am Old Navy pullover to stay warm.

In summary, I cannot give this incredibly unrealistic movie my Bro-Stamp of Approval.  All bros should avoid this movie at all cost unless it’s date night and “she” picked the movie.  In which case I’d advise you to just agree that it’s so sweet how Dana connected with her mother.

Thanks for joining me and my Bad Movie Tuesday pick this week.

The Colony is a wonderful type of dumb. The characters are barely two-dimensional, the bad guys do spin kicks and there is a whole lot of narrating. The film rivals AVP in it’s ice age shenanigans and misunderstanding of frost bite. However, I kinda enjoyed it. It The modestly budgeted Canadian production has a charming personality despite not featuring anything original. The bumps and bruises make it a perfect late night shlock fest that you and your cinephile friends will appreciate.

The film revolves around a crew of survivors who are living out the icepocalypse inside a cozy subterranean bunker. They get a distress call from another cozy bunker and decide to investigate. The investigation turns bloody and many sneering/well dressed cannibals attempt to satiate their hunger on the good looking thespians. These cannibals resemble the baddies from Serenity/Ghost of Mars/30 Days of Night, wield weapons like pros and don’t seem to suffer from frostbite even though they are essentially humans who’ve become flesh eating jerks. They’ve also forgotten traditional language and developed a feral grunting system which must have taken years to coordinate. Imagine, a tribe of cannibals coming up with the first grunting language.

Here is how I think it went down: “No, Hank! less arg arg arg and more Eargghhh babba ganush blah.”

The most memorable part of this film is the bad guy who must be some kind of paranormal. He loves flying through air ducts and surviving explosions. In the film, he survives three separate explosions with nary a scratch. Fishburne drops dynamite in the outpost (nothing). Fishburne blows up a bridge and kills 75% of the bad guys (nothing). Bill Paxton shoots a gas canister killing the rest of the bad guys and the villain slides into an air duct (unscathed). His clothes aren’t burnt and he only becomes hungrier. During the finale he is hit in the head by a steel pole at least 37 times (not an exaggeration). He shakes it off and finally succumbs to getting his head chopped in half. Where did this dude come from? How did he become the leader of a cannibalistic tribe? Does it hurt shaving your teeth into spikes? When did he make the move to cannibalism? Was it an easy choice? Why is that scar so strategic?

Is the guy from Ghost of Mars his cousin?

Does he have Vampire relatives?

The Colony is a film where characters are named Kai, Briggs, Mason and Graydon. A young kid notices bunker seven is completely blood splattered and says “we should leave.” Does Laurence Fishburne agree? Nope. He says “Grow up.” The young kid is eaten shortly after. Bad decisions abound and I absolutely loved it.

The Colony is not a good film. However, it is a lean, never mean film that is enjoyable due to it’s bumps and bruises. Watch it. Like it. Hope for an equally bad sequel.

I Give It A Year is a weird film. It wants to be a reverse romantic comedy (break up romantic comedy?) yet still features stock rom-com characters, readily available love interests and touching moments. It wants to be something different and features a whole lot of the same. So, you are left scratching your head as adultery, botched threesomes, and an airport ending unfolds in front of you.

The director/writer Dan Mazer worked with Sasha Baron Cohen on Bruno, Borat and Ali G. The Borat influence is clear in this film. Borat added naked fights with xenophobic cynicism to uncover American prejudice. It pushed buttons with guerrilla film making and it had a naturalism that hit the mainstream sweet spot.

Mazer has created a film that looks like a romantic comedy, features good-looking actors and follows all the familiar clichés. However, he spikes it with a couple who despise each other. Nothing about them is likable and the film works hard to give them nothing redeeming. This decision hurts the film because instead of supporting them they grate on your nerves. When the break up happens and they move on to their American soul mates you wonder how in the world they could ever be happy? I understand that 50% of marriages end in divorce and romantic comedies set a too high a bar (See Don Jon) but you need to have redeeming characters who don’t just blame the other person for the divorce.

The movie wants to be a cynical sidestep to the romantic comedy genre. However, it features every trope of the genre (They end up at an airport). Roger Ebert summed up the movie when he said:

“I Give It a Year” wants to be silly, and the performances are often extremely silly, but it also wants to be touching, and that is its fatal flaw. Sentiment has no business intruding in such a brutal comedy of manners.”

There is a lot of sentiment in this film. It makes for a very odd concoction of angry, gross and sweet. When the film gets sentimental you don’t care because the characters are so unlikable.

The cast is amazing but the writing make them all “movie characters” and plot devices. Rose Byrne, Rafe Spall, Anna Faris, Stephen Merchant, Minnie Driver, Simon Baker, Jason Flemying and Olivia Colman could all be leads in film. However, in this they are movie clichés in a movie that wanted to avoid clichés.

Writing this review was tough. I get what the director was going for but it came out wonky. He wanted to fight the romantic comedy juggernaut by making something different. However, what he made was a bad romantic comedy about a break-up.

Don’t watch I Give It A Year. If they make a sequel called “I Give It Two Years” watch that because Mazer will have the kinks worked out.

Thor: The Dark World is fun but inconsequential. It is shiny, loud and competent. It has already cleared $500 million worldwide but I see it as a step back for Marvel. It is too safe and too similar to the original. There is nothing new and Marvel’s daredevil spirit is non-existent. Thor 2 feels like a something meant to appease Loki fans and keep the Marvel franchise churning.

There are no revelations, no memorable villains and Natalie Portmans character backslides into simply wanting a boyfriend. I prefer the much maligned Iron Man 2 over The Dark World.  Iron Man 2 has developed a bad reputation but it swung for the fences. It went off the rails but still allowed Sam Rockwell to talk about missiles that could blow up bunkers beneath bunkers. IM2 is an interesting case study of running off the rails. Thor 2 stays on track but is simply the same train going faster.

Thor 2 is more of the same. Hemsworth is shirtless longer, Kat Dennings gets more comedic moments, and Loki is now a full-blown rock star (he earned it). Thor gives people what they want but in the end feels worn. The tiredness is evident in the plot focusing on angry Elves wanting to bring the world back into darkness via dark matter, worm holes, property destruction and yada yada yada.

Villains in Marvel’s films have never been a strong suit. Dating back from Jeff Bridges and Tim Roth in Iron Man and Hulk they always been inconsequential. They are mere fodder for us to enjoy Robert Downey Jr. and crew. The frost giants, Mickey Rourke and Red Skull have never been engaging. However, Marvel  has avoided the bad guy criticism by excelling at off the wall casting, unique directing choices and likable characters.

Thor 2 plays it safe. Marvel hired Game of Thrones director Alan Taylor, cast Christopher Eccleston as the villain and attempted to expand the universe. The finished product is a good film that never excites. Loki is wonderful, Anthony Hopkins slightly overacts and property is destroyed.

Thor 2 is the first time a Marvel film has felt like filler. The stand alone story means nothing, the villains will not reappear and Thor has little character progression. They simply turned up character traits to 11 and gave viewers what they wanted. I’m surprised there wasn’t a guitar solo every time Loki appeared on-screen.

Thor: The Dark World has gotten me excited for Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant Man. They are two little known (to me) properties helmed by unique directors (James Gunn, Edgar Wright) and featuring wonderfully daring casting choices (Paul Rudd, Chris Pratt). They are reasons why I love Marvel’s gamble. They’ve never played it safe and managed to execute a perfect game plan.

Thor 2 is not a bad film but it is a bland film. It will do nothing to wreck Marvel’s name but I hope the safe/committee trend doesn’t continue as Marvel moves onto phase three. Bring on Guardians and Ant Man!

In 1999 a little film entitled The Sixth Sense exploded onto the scene and became a cultural phenomena. SPOILER!!!! The creepy tale about a kid and his dead friend grossed $672 million at the box office. It was nominated for Academy Awards and cemented “I see dead people” into the cinema cannon.  The director was 29 year old M. Night Shyamalan whose only prior directorial credit was a little film called Wide Awake.

Shyamalan’s next film was the now cult classic Unbreakable. It is my favorite Shyamalan film. I love how a man with weak bones is convinced there is someone who is indestructible. Sadly, the film didn’t light up the critical world like The Sixth Sense because expectations were too high and the movie wasn’t a retread. However,  it found an afterlife on DVD and has a devoted following. 

M. Night broke out of his sophomore semi-slump with the blockbuster Signs. Signs was a massive hit ($400 million worldwide) starring Mel Gibson as a grieving widower battling aliens. It received positive critical reception (74%RT) but rumblings started popping up in regards to certain narrative patterns and plot contrivances (water kills aliens etc…).

Times began to change for M. as his next films The Village (43%), Lady In the Water (24%) and The Happening (17%) were profitable failures. They made money but were savaged by a populace who had grown weary of the twists, turns and plotting of Shyamalan. The last nail in the coffin was the sometimes beautiful and mostly confusing The Happening in which air wiped out people’s ability to act.

.

Shyamalan had swung big and missed repeatedly. His failure had become a joke and the studios were no longer interested in his original stories.

His next job was a director for hire on the live action adaptation of The Last Airbender. The film made copious amounts of money ($319 million worldwide) but was critically and publicly reviled.  The Last Airbender felt like a movie by committee that wanted to quell Shyamalan’s tendencies and instead came up with a boring diet cola version of his films.

The biggest problem is Shyamalan needs a slow burn story in which he reveals layer after layer. The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable slowly lead us to beautiful actualization. They took their time and the reward was wonderful. However, his writing style doesn’t mesh well with popular cartoons adored by kids with short attention spans. Thus, he had to pack in seasons of a beloved show into one movie while trying to keep his writing and directing style alive. The result was lucrative but mediocre.

This leads us to After Earth. The story of a teenager braving the wilderness while his stern dad lectures him. The movie features monotone dialogue, wonky CGI and an abrupt ending.  It is an odd film that was fairly/unfairly savaged by critics. Is it the worst film ever made? Nope. Is it good? Nope. Did it need to be dogpiled? Nope. Did it make a decent amount of money? Yep. ($243 million) Did The How Did This Get Made crew do an entertaining discussion for After Earth? Yep.

Some critics called it the “worst film ever, aside from Battlefield Earth” while others marveled at the ineptitude and simply decried the “lack of ambition.” Words such as tedious, terrible, pompous and vanity were thrown around with reckless abandon. Some called it a slight comeback, others insulted the Smith nepotism and other’s took digs at Scientology (Read it all here).

After Earth is structurally unsound and slightly bonkers.  Jaden Smith had no chance as he acted in front of green screens while speaking with a quasi southern accent (I think).  This movie was a no-win. Will Smith came up with the idea and M Night tried to fit that into his narrative wheelhouse. The result was an off-kilter film that in no way meshed. The biggest problem is it was rigid when it should have explored new territory. There was zero wonder or thrills because of the monotone narration and overall glossiness. After Earth should have resembled Avatar’s Pandora but instead felt like a boring day at the office.

Remember when Bruce Willis finds out he can bench press hundreds of pounds in Unbreakable? The scene was exciting because a father and his son were learning about newly realized power. A moment of basement weight lifting carried more heft and suspense than a young kid surviving a violent new world.

Shyamalan directing huge epics or adaptations reminded me of a Mitch Hedburg quote. When asked if he wanted to act Mitch replied:

I worked my ass off to become a really good cook, and they said “alright you’re a cook… can you farm?

M. Night worked hard to tell small singular tales and was now tasked to tell huge multilevel stories. The result was bound to disappoint. He can cook up small stories but should never have been asked to make mass produced fluff.

I miss the days where he had the freedom to tell his strange tales. Some of the greatest and worst films have come from singular visions (Citizen Kane, The Room). We need auteurs who swing big. Let them miss occasionally because when they connect the films are epic. Swing away Shyamalan. Swing away. The $2,276,000,000 worldwide box office receipts don’t lie.

Hello all. Mark here.

O’lasavath has been contributing to the blog for a long time. Whether he is delivering pithy comments for movie trailers or putting together a football team of nothing but characters from romantic comedies he has been around a while. However, this is his first review. He got tasked with watching Chernobyl Diaries. Co-writer John already reviewed the film but I have a strange fascination with Diaries. I find it intriguing that a movie about radioactive mutants rarely shows the radioactive mutants. So, I wanted O’lasavath’s opinion of the film.

Here it is! Thanks O’lasavath!

Chernobyl Diaries tricked me. I went into the movie expecting to absolutely loathe it. I prepared a slew of vicious put-downs and jokes in anticipation for how bad this movie was going to be. I felt like an archer at the Macy’s Day Parade: expecting a never-ending line of easy targets to take down. None of that happened, however, as the unthinkable happened. I didn’t hate the movie. I went from wanting to hate the movie to pulling for it to succeed.

Chernobyl Diaries comes from producer Oren Peli of Paranormal Activity (read all about the series here, here and here)  fame. Diaries is not a “found footage” horror film like the rest of Peli’s back catalog, although you would not be blamed for thinking it was. The plot of Chernobyl Diaries is pretty threadbare, but that’s standard for horror movies. It involves four American tourists on holiday in the Ukraine. The infamous Chernobyl nuclear power plant coincidentally also happens to be in Ukraine. You can already guess that someone decides it would be a great idea to sneak into Chernobyl.

The predictable plot isn’t Diaries biggest problem. Horror movies don’t need intricate plots to be effective. A great setting and immersive atmosphere are wonderful tools to help convey a sense of dread and terror. This is the movie’s biggest misfire: it absolutely squanders a terrific setting.

The Chernobyl disaster provides plenty of horror movie potential in a post nuclear fallout atmosphere. Visions of mutant animals and cannibals immediately pop to mind when discussing such a scenario. Whether due to budget restraints or poor judgment, the film absolutely underdelivers in that regard. The majority of the threats to the characters come in the form of wild animals or radiation poisoning. There are mutants, but their appearance is too little and too late. It’s not a good sign when you’re watching a film and imagining various ways in which this movie could be better. Chernobyl Diaries had great potential, but ultimately it falls far short of what it should’ve been.

SPOILER WARNING!

The horror genre is at its best when the scenarios are unavoidable and the victims are not dumb. The people should be fighting for their lives and be in way over their heads. For instance, classics like The Exorcist, Alien, Halloween and Jaws stem from primal evil or unavoidable conflict. Take a look at Rotten Tomatoes top 100 and you will notice a pattern. Good people risking their lives to help others is a great blueprint for horror. The Conjuring adopted the blueprint earlier this year and it was a critical and financial hit.

The killer of horror is “dumb selfishness.” When the situations could have been avoided it diminishes the effect. You don’t care for the characters because they put themselves in the situation. Some movies get away with  bad choices. The Descent is my favorite horror film and it all stems from one person making a terrible choice. However, the other spelunkers did not know about it and it was all about restoring a relationship. They did not not continue to make poor choices like our heroes in Devil’s Pass.

Devil’s Pass goes awry as it gives our heroes every chance to get away yet they stay and die. They enter mysterious doors, ignore omens (tongues in boxes) and insist on having sex which of course leaves them freezing when the baddies attack. It all culminates in lots of bad CGI and a once promising narrative travels to a bonkers land of Blair Witch, [REC], and Chernobyl Diaries tropes.

I know that “dumb selfishness” is a staple of horror and I should learn to embrace it. Before, you think this is an affront on horror know that I feel this way about any type of genre. Nothing wrecks a movie for me like unlikable characters who put themselves in bad situations because of hubris (Burt Wonderstone is a prime comedy example). Devil’s Pass director Renny Harlin (Deep Blue Sea) should have taken notes from the exploration gone awry found footage film Europa Report. Demise is guaranteed but it comes in the form of vast knowledge and unselfishness. The death in DP is due to one women and her quest to get everyone killed.

There are certain found footage films that have risen above the dumb. Blair Witch, Trollhunter, [Rec], Behind the Mask, Cloverfield, Chronicle, Paranormal Activity and Europa Report are all wonderful examples of good. The common denominator is that these people are not pursuing dangerous situations due to selfishness. They are out of their league and their dialogue is good. Devil’s Pass could have all been avoided and that is why it doesn’t work.

The story centers around a crew of young adventurists working on a project about the Dyatlov Pass. Nine people died at the pass in 1959 and much speculation has been made in regards to the mysterious incidents. Was it an avalanche, aliens, yeti, or the cold? From the beginning they are told to stay away yet they keep on trudging towards the inevitable. People lie, make rash decisions and camp close to avalanche territory. The film gets a little creepy but then dives headlong into CGI land and becomes another creature feature involving time travel.

I watched Devil’s Pass because I am a big fan of Renny Harlin. He is a maestro of mayhem and I love Deep Blue Sea, Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger and Driven. However, he should stay away from horror. His films Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, Exorcist The Beginning and Mindhunters have in no way matched his overblown action epics. I would have loved to see him film what happened to the original hikers in 1959 (starring Stallone, Slater, Rooker).

Devil’s Pass represents everything wrong with horror. None of it had to happen.Watch Trollhunter or Europa Report instead.